ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court will be pleased to send for the record of the court below, peruse the same and after perusal, quash the convictions and sentences, acquit the accused or pass any other orders that this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper”

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1993.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order, 23.06.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in the Sessions Case No. 10/92, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant, Barkat Khan under Sections 307, 458 and 323/34 IPC for 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo 6 months S.I.; 2 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo 1 month’s S.I.; and 1 month’s S.I. respectively. Further, the other appellants were convicted under Sections 307/34, 458, 323 IPC and sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, default of payment of which they were ordered to further undergo 3 months S.I, and 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- default of payment of which, ordered to further undergo 2 month’s S.I. And that the learned trial court also directed that the aforementioned fine amount if recovered, Rs.2000/- was to be paid to the injured party.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to appellants was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 09.07.1993 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 235/1993.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the appellant, Barkat Khan has undergone 34 days in custody out of the 3 years sentence so awarded to him by the learned Court below. And that, the remaining appellants, Maley, Nasia, and Walia have undergone 5 days, 5 days, and 4 days in custody respectively out of the 2 years sentence so awarded to them by the learned Court below.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 2022 (1) BLJ 366 wherein it was observed as under:-

“Appellant-Surinder Singh has laid challenge to the judgment dated 19th May 2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby, the order of his conviction and sentence dated 25th July 2006 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh was confirmed. The Appellant has been convicted Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter, 'Arms Act'), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for both the offences, with a direction that sentences will run concurrently.

…We are thus of the considered opinion that whilst motive is infallibly a crucial factor, and is a substantial aid for evincing the commission of an offence but the absence thereof is, however, not such a quintessential component which can be construed as fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially when all other factors point towards the guilt of the Accused and testaments of eye-witnesses to the occurrence of a malfeasance are on record.

…The Appellant was admittedly a police official at the time of the incidence and the arms and ammunitions used for the commission of the offence, were placed in his possession under the sanction accorded by the Competent Authority. The Appellant being in authorised possession of the weapon, cannot be said to have used an unlicensed weapon, as prohibited Under Section 5 of the Arms Act. It app